Downing Street Says

Asked if the Home Secretary had jumped the gun yesterday by announcing that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would be renamed the Public Prosecution Service, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said we were surprised that people were surprised about this issue given the fact that it had been floated as an idea by the Attorney General last January, the Home Secretary last summer and the Director of Public Prosecutions two weeks ago. He underlined that it was still being floated as an idea. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, had issued a statement yesterday saying, “We are a public prosecution service and for some time I have favoured a change of name to make that clearer”. No final decision had been reached at this point. When the process was complete, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions would make an announcement. The idea had merit because it reflected the point that the Prosecution Service worked on behalf of the public.

Put to him it was clear that the Monarchy represented the public interest, the PMOS said that if the name were to be changed, it would reflect the fact that the Prosecution Service was working on behalf of the public. At this point, however, it was important to be clear that no final decision had been taken. Asked by the Press Association why only the CPS might be changing its name when other organisations, jobs and laws derived their authority from the Crown as well, the PMOS underlined that there was no proposal to change the concept of the Queen vs John Smith – or even Jon Smith. He apologised for his little in-joke.

Asked if he would agree that the Director of Public Prosecution’s argument in favour of renaming the CPS could be applied equally to Britain’s armed forces, the PMOS said that the change of name, were it to happen, would simply reflect the fact that the Prosecution Service was acting on behalf of the public, as indeed the name ‘Director of Public Prosecutions’ would indicate. The proposal was not in any way meant to demean the role of the Crown or the Queen. Put to him that the armed forces also performed a public service and that, according to his argument, they should also be renamed, the PMOS pointed out that the armed forces acted on behalf of the nation as a whole. He repeated that nothing had been settled at this stage. These were issues which needed to be debated, which was why a consultation process was under way. Asked to rule out categorically the prospect of the armed forces being renamed, the PMOS said that it was not an issue he was aware of. Asked if there was also a plan afoot to change the name of ‘Her Majesty’s Prisons’ to ‘People’s Prisons’, the PMOS said he believed that a consultation exercise was currently underway about this matter. He referred journalists to the Prisons Service for the detail of it.

Put to him that the whole point of the Crown Prosecution Service was the fact that it was an independent entity which brought prosecutions under the symbolic authority of the Crown, and therefore did not act on behalf of the public, the PMOS said that in terms of fighting and reducing crime, the Prosecution Service was acting on behalf of the public. That was why there was a ‘Director of Public Prosecutions’. Put to him that the whole point of ‘Republicanism’ was to replace the Crown, the PMOS pointed out that the Director of Public Prosecutions, as his name implied, was acting on behalf of the public against those who committed crimes against the public. The view, therefore, was that the Prosecution Service should reflect that fact more fully.

Asked if there was any evidence to suggest that members of the public were confused by the title ‘Crown Prosecution Service’, the PMOS referred journalists to the relevant departments for details of any research that might have been carried out into this matter. He said he thought it was worthwhile to think about whether the public wanted to see a name which reflected the fact that the Prosecution Service represented them. Pressed as to whether there was any evidence of public demand or desire for change, the PMOS pointed out that the fact the name change had become an issue which serious people, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General, all thought was worth considering, was clearly important.

Asked if the name change would be a worthy use of public funds if people were unable to identify how taking such action could possibly advance the cause of law and order, the PMOS said he would disagree with the premise of the question inasmuch as he believed it was worth debating and thinking about whether a name change would make the organisation’s role clearer to ordinary members of the public. The idea should not be dismissed lightly because names clearly mattered.

Asked why the Palace had not been consulted about the idea to rename the CPS if the proposal had been floating around since last January, the PMOS said that the Palace had been aware of the idea. The formal consultation process was now taking place. Asked if he was indicating that the Queen/Palace had been consulted, the PMOS said that since the Attorney General, the Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions had all spoken about this matter in public, it had therefore become a matter of public debate. There was also a consultation process which would include the Queen as well.

Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that the proposal to rename the CPS, make changes to the Lord Chancellor’s Department and rename HMP Prisons without consulting the Palace showed a lack of respect to the Monarchy, the PMOS said that he would reject the premise of the question absolutely. The Prime Minister and Ministers had all made clear their respect for the Royal Family and the Constitution. At the same time, it was important to recognise that public institutions were not immune to change. Equally, people needed to understand that changes could take place without implying any disrespect whatsoever for the Royal Family or the British Constitution.

Asked if it was the case that the Prime Minister, who had obviously been very busy recently, had only just noticed the proposal to rename the CPS, thought it was a very stupid idea and had sent his Official Spokesman out today to ‘execute a swift u-turn’, the PMOS said no. He repeated that a consultation process was taking place. That would continue.

16 Comments »

"… the PMOS underlined that there was no proposal to change the concept of the Queen vs John Smith – or even Jon Smith. He apologised for his little in-joke."
Am I being dumb? I don’t get it.

(In other news, they seem to have been giving the PMOS a really hard time over this. "People’s Prisons", indeed….)
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 3 Mar 2004 on 4:05 pm | Link
Surely, when speaking, it is very difficult to convey the difference between John and Jon. I don’t get it either.

Well, there we go – obviously we can’t expect Downing Street to make sense ALL the time…
Comment by Lodjer — 3 Mar 2004 on 4:22 pm | Link
This has nothing to do with sensible policy and more with aligning our country’s system with that of a federal Europe.

Souonds like Regional Assemblies might come off the backburner soon!
Comment by Tim — 3 Mar 2004 on 6:29 pm | Link
Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

I say no.

Not if it costs a whole load of money changing letterheads for no appreciable benefit.
Comment by Gregor Hopkins — 3 Mar 2004 on 7:21 pm | Link
This is getting more and more like Orwell’s 1984 every day. Instead of fixing problems, they just change the name hoping it will fool people. Ultimately, when you are robbed and the police won’t even come and take fingerprints, it doesn’t matter what they call the CPS
Comment by DEGREEK — 3 Mar 2004 on 10:09 pm | Link
"Far-reaching constitutional reforms have come under fire from the Lord Chief Justice.
Lord Woolf said plans for a supreme court replacing the House of Lords as the top legal body will create a ‘second class institution’. He also singled out Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer for criticism. And he said David Blunkett’s plans to limit the right of appeal for asylum seekers was ‘fundamentally in conflict with the rule of law’. – from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3530947.stm

How long it be before the Lord Chief Justice is arrested for bringing the government into disrepute?
Comment by Bob — 3 Mar 2004 on 10:33 pm | Link
Why would they want to prosecute the public?
Comment by Hodge — 4 Mar 2004 on 8:30 am | Link
It won’t be long before we hear Queen’s Counsel are renamed ‘People’s Briefs’. Anyone in deep trouble may well require a fresh pair.

If names are so important what is wrong with reminding us that we live in a constitutional monarchy and that the judiciary is independent from the executive … oh, I get it….
Comment by nigel — 4 Mar 2004 on 1:40 pm | Link
Surely the CPS does not ‘work on behalf of the public’, any more than the prison service, the armed forces, the police, the judiciary or Parliament itself work on behalf of the public? All these institutions work on behalf of The Crown. She’s got her name on everything, including us – which is why we are Subjects and not Citizens. Or have I got it all mixed up?
Comment by David — 4 Mar 2004 on 2:46 pm | Link
Having worked for 10 years as a criminal prosecutor, firstly with the Met Police and later with the Dorset Force, I was one of those unfortunate souls who was transferred into the CPS in 1985, or was it ’86? The Government made an absolute mess of the set up of the CPS and this was evidenced by the number of first class and experienced prosecutors who left the Service. Morale was at an all time low, with Police and CPS arguing repeatedly about where to lay the blame for poor preparation of files and presentation of cases in Court.
One of the only good things about the CPS was its title. To work for the CROWN Prosecution Service at least gave some sense of gravitas and status. What hope, a consultation exercise with the people who actually matter here – the staff of the CPS and other user groups within the criminal justice system?
Also, have they all forgotten that the reason everyone bows to the Bench, both in Magistrates Courts and the higher Courts, is not in deference to the person on the Bench, but in honour of the Crown.
Comment by Roger Smith — 4 Mar 2004 on 4:10 pm | Link
Remember Consignia? Remember the cost? This ‘proposal’ is not just absurd, it is complete muppetry! Was this Government elected to waste the tax-payers’ money? Not by me it wasn’t. Go take a long rest Mr Blunkett, and take your change-for-change sake cronies with you!
Comment by Mr Baggins — 4 Mar 2004 on 10:19 pm | Link
Once again we get to see the monarchy in this country eroded under the guise of making the public more involved. Forgive me if this is somewhat cynical but surely they should be doing a consultation exercise as to whether we mind awfully the system being renamed the government prosecution service rather than otherwise as all they seem to be doing is removing the monarchy and replacing it with themselves.
Comment by Sapphrine — 10 Mar 2004 on 8:46 am | Link
I think I heard on Radio 4 last night that the decision to change the name of the CPS has been reconsidered. Unfortunately, search as I might, I have not been able to find any verification online. It would be nice to have an absolute, well argued decision made public.
Comment by Matt Williams — 9 Dec 2004 on 10:02 pm | Link
As a law-abiding, socially-responsible person with absolutely no previous criminal record and from a well-respected professional family resident at the same address for 40 years, I am nevertheless one of many featured in the media as recently suffering wrongful/malicious arrest, charge and prosecution involving multiple incompetence/negligence and abuse of legal process by the CPS, compounding my previous severe harassment by the Police, for which I have instigated legal proceedings for compensation and punitive damages from 4 Forces nationally, having suffered multiple wrongful arrests and charges across 10 Force counties and 7 different CPS areas.

Clearly, they do wrongly prosecute the public. Having managed to persuade 4 CPS areas to discontinue in the light of overwhelming defence evidence showing that it was not in the public interest to continue with a series of wrongly alleged traffic offences (after I became \x93known\x94 to the Police and wrongly shown on the Police National Computer as a firearms suspect with cases pending based on the false and malicious allegations of my ex-partner for the relatively minor summary alleged offence of harassment without fear of violence – which she and her associates then falsely escalated to breach of bail, criminal damage, assault, witness intimidation and attempting to pervert the course of justice when she herself, supported by her partners in crime, were actually committing those same offences and worse against me) as a result of her conspiracy with others, including at least 1 Police Officer in the shape of her close friend\x92s Met. DC husband as below, to pervert the course of justice, I was left with 3 cases in 3 different counties on basically the same facts, something which is not supposed to happen in British law. Even more significantly, these cases then resulted in one unreserved acquittal and two discontinuances. The first discontinuance came after over a year\x92s delay and the second in almost a year\x92s delay in not coming to Trial because of the total lack of any evidence of any wrong-doing on my part and the very poor credibility of the Complainant as the key Prosecution witness given that in the interim I had succeeded in exposing their conspiracy – as I had alleged was so from the outset in each case, in my robust and coherent defence from my first being interviewed following my voluntary surrender and full co-operation with the Police enquires. I had done so on the naive basis that I foolishly believed that because I had nothing to hide I had nothing to fear. Similarly in my third case, where my unreserved acquittal only came after an inexcusable delay of almost 2 years in coming to Trial, and only then as a result of the Complainant\x92s evidence being exposed as false as part of that same conspiracy. Therefore, the change of name to the Public Prosecution Service (or should it really be Dis-service) is entirely appropriate, especially if, in doing so, it removes their immunity as a Crown body from any prosecution or civil litigation for any genuine and valid claim of incompetence, dereliction of duty, wilful negligence, corruption, misfeasance / malfeasance in public office – as all apply to these 3 cases and possibly to some of my others – or any other wrong-doing on their part. Or if it simply makes it easier to prosecute such a claim against them as being a properly accountable Public Prosecution Service as they should be.

Hence, I have coupled my own legal actions against the Police and CPS with a Parliamentary and Media campaign to highlight such legal injustice and consequent social injustice – given the impoverishment, stress/ill-health and other hardship it causes not only to the victim but also their close and wider family/friends with a view to reform of the Criminal Justice System to better protect the innocent, particularly in terms of eliminating incompetent/negligent/bent Policing (as per my own Met. Case re. PC Simon Hardiman, DC Christopher Heerey and DSHebden; also my own Herts Case re PC\x92s Hughes and Wright and also, possibly, their disgraced DS/DI Christopher Spackman who was himself convicted around the same time in 2003 on 3 counts of conspiracy, theft and misconduct in Police office, resulting in the review of over 20 of his cases for likely miscarriage of justice, including that of Kevin Lane who he had apparently framed for the murder of Herts. businessman Robert Magill and for which he was then apparently wrongly convicted in 1997 with a likely prison term of 25 years of which he has already served 8 pending successful appeal; and also my own Greater Manchester/N. Yorks Police case re. GM PC Andrew Potts & his Inspector 6758 Peter Smith, GM PC xxxx Berry and his North Manchester colleagues together with GMP Licensing Inspector Darryl Butterworth and NY PC 1344 Richard Andrews and NY DC 333 Galley;, together with a very similar case involving another Gorton/Manchester resident, Nigel Currie); and in ensuring the proper Police investigation of strongly disputed false/malicious allegations, fabricated evidence and incorrect expert evidence, extending into conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, all of which requires a radical strengthening of the seriously outdated and ineffective law regarding perjury and criminal waste of Police and Court time. That campaign is being conducted in conjunction with another similar victim, Tameside Councillor Sean Parker-Perry and his father-in-law, Lord Pendry, assisted by myself as a real-life, crime-fighting super-hero in the guise of Spiderman.

For more details, please see:

1. http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk under search for \x93KC Godin-Prior\x94 which should
bring up the 10/09/04 \x93Manchester Evening News\x94 article on me \x93Homage to
Crime-fight Superhero \x94together with striking full-colour photo of me as
Spiderman in action pose.

2. http://www.cps-complaintsagainst.com

3 http://www.justiceforkevinlane.com, particularly the News & Media page with its links
to 2 \x93Guardian\x94articles

Any comments/replies to me personally can be sent to kcgodin_prior@yahoo.co.uk
Comment by Kevin Charles (KC) Godin-Prior — 14 Dec 2005 on 1:39 pm | Link
As a law-abiding, socially-responsible person with absolutely no previous criminal record and from a well-respected professional family resident at the same address for 40 years, I am nevertheless one of many featured in the media as recently suffering wrongful/malicious arrest, charge and prosecution involving multiple incompetence/negligence and abuse of legal process by the CPS, compounding my previous severe harassment by the Police, for which I have instigated legal proceedings for compensation and punitive damages from 4 Forces nationally, having suffered multiple wrongful arrests and charges across 10 Force counties and 7 different CPS areas.

Clearly, they do wrongly prosecute the public. Having managed to persuade 4 CPS areas to discontinue in the light of overwhelming defence evidence showing that it was not in the public interest to continue with a series of wrongly alleged traffic offences (after I became \x93known\x94 to the Police and wrongly shown on the Police National Computer as a firearms suspect with cases pending based on the false and malicious allegations of my ex-partner for the relatively minor summary alleged offence of harassment without fear of violence – which she and her associates then falsely escalated to breach of bail, criminal damage, assault, witness intimidation and attempting to pervert the course of justice when she herself, supported by her partners in crime, were actually committing those same offences and worse against me) as a result of her conspiracy with others, including at least 1 Police Officer in the shape of her close friend\x92s Met. DC husband as below, to pervert the course of justice, I was left with 3 cases in 3 different counties on basically the same facts, something which is not supposed to happen in British law. Even more significantly, these cases then resulted in one unreserved acquittal and two discontinuances. The first discontinuance came after over a year\x92s delay and the second in almost a year\x92s delay in not coming to Trial because of the total lack of any evidence of any wrong-doing on my part and the very poor credibility of the Complainant as the key Prosecution witness given that in the interim I had succeeded in exposing their conspiracy – as I had alleged was so from the outset in each case, in my robust and coherent defence from my first being interviewed following my voluntary surrender and full co-operation with the Police enquires. I had done so on the naive basis that I foolishly believed that because I had nothing to hide I had nothing to fear. Similarly in my third case, where my unreserved acquittal only came after an inexcusable delay of almost 2 years in coming to Trial, and only then as a result of the Complainant\x92s evidence being exposed as false as part of that same conspiracy. Therefore, the change of name to the Public Prosecution Service (or should it really be Dis-service) is entirely appropriate, especially if, in doing so, it removes their immunity as a Crown body from any prosecution or civil litigation for any genuine and valid claim of incompetence, dereliction of duty, wilful negligence, corruption, misfeasance / malfeasance in public office – as all apply to these 3 cases and possibly to some of my others – or any other wrong-doing on their part. Or if it simply makes it easier to prosecute such a claim against them as being a properly accountable Public Prosecution Service as they should be.

Hence, I have coupled my own legal actions against the Police and CPS with a Parliamentary and Media campaign to highlight such legal injustice and consequent social injustice – given the impoverishment, stress/ill-health and other hardship it causes not only to the victim but also their close and wider family/friends with a view to reform of the Criminal Justice System to better protect the innocent, particularly in terms of eliminating incompetent/negligent/bent Policing (as per my own Met. Case re. PC Simon Hardiman, DC Christopher Heerey and DSHebden; also my own Herts Case re PC\x92s Hughes and Wright and also, possibly, their disgraced DS/DI Christopher Spackman who was himself convicted around the same time in 2003 on 3 counts of conspiracy, theft and misconduct in Police office, resulting in the review of over 20 of his cases for likely miscarriage of justice, including that of Kevin Lane who he had apparently framed for the murder of Herts. businessman Robert Magill and for which he was then apparently wrongly convicted in 1997 with a likely prison term of 25 years of which he has already served 8 pending successful appeal; and also my own Greater Manchester/N. Yorks Police case re. GM PC Andrew Potts & his Inspector 6758 Peter Smith, GM PC xxxx Berry and his North Manchester colleagues together with GMP Licensing Inspector Darryl Butterworth and NY PC 1344 Richard Andrews and NY DC 333 Galley;, together with a very similar case involving another Gorton/Manchester resident, Nigel Currie); and in ensuring the proper Police investigation of strongly disputed false/malicious allegations, fabricated evidence and incorrect expert evidence, extending into conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, all of which requires a radical strengthening of the seriously outdated and ineffective law regarding perjury and criminal waste of Police and Court time. That campaign is being conducted in conjunction with another similar victim, Tameside Councillor Sean Parker-Perry and his father-in-law, Lord Pendry, assisted by myself as a real-life, crime-fighting super-hero in the guise of Spiderman.

For more details, please see:

1. http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk under search for \x93KC Godin-Prior\x94 which should
bring up the 10/09/04 \x93Manchester Evening News\x94 article on me \x93Homage to
Crime-fight Superhero \x94together with striking full-colour photo of me as
Spiderman in action pose.

2. http://www.cps-complaintsagainst.com

3 http://www.justiceforkevinlane.com, particularly the News & Media page with its links
to 2 \x93Guardian\x94articles

Any comments/replies to me personally can be sent to kcgodin_prior@yahoo.co.uk
Comment by Kevin Charles (KC) Godin-Prior — 14 Dec 2005 on 1:40 pm | Link
As a law-abiding, socially-responsible person with absolutely no previous criminal record and from a well-respected professional family resident at the same address for 40 years, I am nevertheless one of many featured in the media as recently suffering wrongful/malicious arrest, charge and prosecution involving multiple incompetence/negligence and abuse of legal process by the CPS, compounding my previous severe harassment by the Police, for which I have instigated legal proceedings for compensation and punitive damages from 4 Forces nationally, having suffered multiple wrongful arrests and charges across 10 Force counties and 7 different CPS areas.

Clearly, they do wrongly prosecute the public. Having managed to persuade 4 CPS areas to discontinue in the light of overwhelming defence evidence showing that it was not in the public interest to continue with a series of wrongly alleged traffic offences (after I became \x93known\x94 to the Police and wrongly shown on the Police National Computer as a firearms suspect with cases pending based on the false and malicious allegations of my ex-partner for the relatively minor summary alleged offence of harassment without fear of violence – which she and her associates then falsely escalated to breach of bail, criminal damage, assault, witness intimidation and attempting to pervert the course of justice when she herself, supported by her partners in crime, were actually committing those same offences and worse against me) as a result of her conspiracy with others, including at least 1 Police Officer in the shape of her close friend\x92s Met. DC husband as below, to pervert the course of justice, I was left with 3 cases in 3 different counties on basically the same facts, something which is not supposed to happen in British law. Even more significantly, these cases then resulted in one unreserved acquittal and two discontinuances. The first discontinuance came after over a year\x92s delay and the second in almost a year\x92s delay in not coming to Trial because of the total lack of any evidence of any wrong-doing on my part and the very poor credibility of the Complainant as the key Prosecution witness given that in the interim I had succeeded in exposing their conspiracy – as I had alleged was so from the outset in each case, in my robust and coherent defence from my first being interviewed following my voluntary surrender and full co-operation with the Police enquires. I had done so on the naive basis that I foolishly believed that because I had nothing to hide I had nothing to fear. Similarly in my third case, where my unreserved acquittal only came after an inexcusable delay of almost 2 years in coming to Trial, and only then as a result of the Complainant\x92s evidence being exposed as false as part of that same conspiracy. Therefore, the change of name to the Public Prosecution Service (or should it really be Dis-service) is entirely appropriate, especially if, in doing so, it removes their immunity as a Crown body from any prosecution or civil litigation for any genuine and valid claim of incompetence, dereliction of duty, wilful negligence, corruption, misfeasance / malfeasance in public office – as all apply to these 3 cases and possibly to some of my others – or any other wrong-doing on their part. Or if it simply makes it easier to prosecute such a claim against them as being a properly accountable Public Prosecution Service as they should be.

Hence, I have coupled my own legal actions against the Police and CPS with a Parliamentary and Media campaign to highlight such legal injustice and consequent social injustice – given the impoverishment, stress/ill-health and other hardship it causes not only to the victim but also their close and wider family/friends with a view to reform of the Criminal Justice System to better protect the innocent, particularly in terms of eliminating incompetent/negligent/bent Policing (as per my own Met. Case re. PC Simon Hardiman, DC Christopher Heerey and DSHebden; also my own Herts Case re PC\x92s Hughes and Wright and also, possibly, their disgraced DS/DI Christopher Spackman who was himself convicted around the same time in 2003 on 3 counts of conspiracy, theft and misconduct in Police office, resulting in the review of over 20 of his cases for likely miscarriage of justice, including that of Kevin Lane who he had apparently framed for the murder of Herts. businessman Robert Magill and for which he was then apparently wrongly convicted in 1997 with a likely prison term of 25 years of which he has already served 8 pending successful appeal; and also my own Greater Manchester/N. Yorks Police case re. GM PC Andrew Potts & his Inspector 6758 Peter Smith, GM PC xxxx Berry and his North Manchester colleagues together with GMP Licensing Inspector Darryl Butterworth and NY PC 1344 Richard Andrews and NY DC 333 Galley;, together with a very similar case involving another Gorton/Manchester resident, Nigel Currie); and in ensuring the proper Police investigation of strongly disputed false/malicious allegations, fabricated evidence and incorrect expert evidence, extending into conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, all of which requires a radical strengthening of the seriously outdated and ineffective law regarding perjury and criminal waste of Police and Court time. That campaign is being conducted in conjunction with another similar victim, Tameside Councillor Sean Parker-Perry and his father-in-law, Lord Pendry, assisted by myself as a real-life, crime-fighting super-hero in the guise of Spiderman.

For more details, please see:

1. http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk under search for \x93KC Godin-Prior\x94 which should
bring up the 10/09/04 \x93Manchester Evening News\x94 article on me \x93Homage to
Crime-fight Superhero \x94together with striking full-colour photo of me as
Spiderman in action pose.

2. http://www.cps-complaintsagainst.com

3 http://www.justiceforkevinlane.com, particularly the News & Media page with its links
to 2 \x93Guardian\x94articles

Any comments/replies to me personally can be sent to kcgodin_prior@yahoo.co.uk
Comment by Kevin Charles (KC) Godin-Prior — 14 Dec 2005 on 1:44 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 3, 2004

CPS

16 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries